I'm so sick of pretending there's a "right" way to be a boy or a girl. The implication is that there is one way to be the ideal man, for example, and every other man is just measuring himself as to how far away from the ideal he is. And how far away is too far and tips him into the "born in the wrong body" state? 5'8" instead of 6"? Likes to wear pink or have long hair? Doesn't like football? And then expecting the whole world to accommodate this version of "reality" or receive social and legal sanctions is the icing on the cake. It's all ridiculous. We're all born male or female. The gender identity crowd created a problem that didn't exist except in a very few rare cases, made it mainstream, and backed into "gender identity" as a solution. Oh, and made it into a billion dollar industry. Don't forget that important part.
I agree that it's a good starting point, but I also recognize that it's a really hard question which doesn't have complete answers. Self acceptance and love for the person *as they are* is given, but I think it may also require medical intervention -- not to alter the person's body, but to modulate anxiety, compulsions, and possibly delusions. But all on a "balance of harms" basis.
I can totally believe it. My son while living in California decided to transition. Had he not been in Cali in the middle of a pandemic, I might still have a son.
I totally agree with the article. What is happening in California and New York State is a clear first amendment violation (the states established gender religion). ACLU should be suing both stats for this. What is ACLU doing instead? It is pushing the religion itself. The reversal of its values is not restricted to this issue---famously ACLU no longer stands for free speech (cf ACLU lawyer Chase/Kate Strangio's famous quote "... stopping the circulation of this book and these is 100% a hill I will die on.").
I totally agree, Dave. It's emblematic of the 180 degree turn that the Left has made on several fronts. Democrats have been so conditioned as to believe that freedom of speech (and consequently freedom of thought) is inherently dangerous. My forever-Democratic wife will never forgive me for switching parties. What I've learned from our arguments is that I can actually still agree with her on several issues, but I'm failing to prioritize those issues correctly. That is...vote Democratic! That demand for ideological conformity could just be human nature, but I actually believe it is more characteristic of the Left. Yet if either of her two grandchildren were brainwashed and started down the transgender path, you better believe that would be her "step on the rake" moment. Then and only then would it register with her as a legitimate concern or priority.
Yes, and it shamelessly piggybacks on civil rights for legitimacy, constantly harping about how "transphobia" is like racism. That analogy taps into deep guilt and a religious impulse to atone for sin. The self righteous shunning of non believers in my deep blue college town is worthy of a cult. The New Puritans, as Andrew Doyle called them. So true.
This is quite accurate. This bizarre belief system needs to be treated as just that. People can have bizarre beliefs, but they should not be forcing those beliefs on other people, teaching them to children as facts, and punishing the non-believers. Children should be protected from the more gruesome rituals of this belief system, from puberty blockers to cross-sex synthetic hormones to chopping off body parts or mangling others.
I keep waiting for society to realize this, and I'm hopeful that some day it will, at which point people will look back in horror on what our state governments (executive, legislative and judicial branches) and former federal government, and all the pillars of society, from large corporations, to famous people, to educators and medical providers, have done.
Gender ideology is a religion owing to the claim of a trans soul, the in/out group mentality and the fanaticism. It has gone beyond the fetish of a few.
The article states: "Those who defend gender ideology believe it is possible to have a 'gender identity' different from one's 'sex assigned at birth,' although there is no credible evidence of a biological or scientific basis for this concept. Declaring that you are a boy in a girl's body is an idea, a thought, ultimately a belief. And yet, the existence of boys in girls' bodies (and vice versa) is the official state policy of many US states."
Let's go step by step.
There are people who claim to have a "gender identity" different from their sex assigned at birth. That is a fact. What this means is that these people do not have a typical gender expression — that is, the expression we all associate with a given sex. For example, boys on average are more active than girls. If a boy behaves like the majority of girls, then he does not have typical behavior for his sex. In that case, he would have a "gender identity" different from his sex.
In general, males with a gender identity different from their sex will, in adulthood, be effeminate homosexuals. And girls with a gender identity different from their sex will be masculine lesbians. Or at least that was the case before so-called "gender medicine" took over.
The problem, then, is not that there are people with a cross-gender identity, but rather what response we give them when they experience "gender dysphoria."
There are basically two options: either we put them into gender medicine (with hormonal and surgical treatments), or we promote self-acceptance and help them deal with the hostile reactions they may encounter from others. I firmly believe the latter is the correct choice.
I don't consider "likes to do things and behave in ways not typical of their sex" to be "has a different gender identity" at all. I reject the use of the neologism at all. It rejects all the progress of last generation's feminism.
I do agree that some behaviors are *typical* of one gender or another, but they're not *means of identification* any more than "can jump high and loves to play basketball" is a way to identify that a person is Black. It's just absurd.
People who say they have a gender identity different from their sex do indeed behave and express themselves in ways that are atypical for their sex.
These different forms can range from behaviors to clothing, hairstyles, and other things.
That is what they call "gender identity" — whether we agree with that nomenclature or not.
Whether we accept it or not, the important thing is that the solution to gender dysphoria — that is, the distress suffered from being different — should be self-acceptance, not medicalization.
Focusing on the claim that gender identity doesn't exist is a distraction from the real problem.
Calling it "gender identity" at all is part of the problem. Is your height part of your gender identity? These are things that have trends that statistically align with gender, but *attaching* them to gender *causes* the problems we see here.
We already solved this problem over 30 years ago. The only reason it's coming back is because somebody *wants* it to be a problem.
I think I understand your point now. You're saying that labeling behaviors, clothing, and hairstyles as "gender identity" is the original mistake. And that before this new ideology, we already had a feminist framework where a boy could be feminine without being called a girl.
I agree with you on that historical point. But here's my question:
Even if we don't use the term "gender identity" — or even if we reject it entirely — there are still children and teenagers who experience distress because they are different. They feel that their atypical behaviors or preferences mean something deeper about who they are. That distress is real, regardless of whether the category is invented or what name we give it.
So what do we do with that distress? My position is: help them accept themselves as they are (boys who enjoy feminine things, girls who enjoy masculine things, or future homosexual adults). Your position seems to be: the distress itself is caused by the false category, so if we stop using the category, the distress will disappear.
Is that correct? If so, I'm not sure the distress disappears just by renaming things or eliminating the category. Children still get bullied for being different. They still feel ashamed. They still look for explanations. And right now, the only explanation offered by schools, media, and doctors is "you must be trans."
So even if we agree the term is wrong, we still face the same practical question: how do we help these children without medicalizing them?
We can help children without medicalizing them by dumping the concept of gender into the garbage once and for all.
"Distress" comes from ridicule, bullying and loss of affiliation of ones peers. If there were no judgments, there would be no distress. If the obsession with "gender" didn't exist, or if it were irrelevant to the character, intelligence, and interests of a person, nobody would be in distress.
Back in the 1950's, a lesbian friend of mine was taken to a psychiatrist by her mother because she didn't want to wear dresses and have her hair curled. She hadn't reached puberty yet and didn't know she was a lesbian yet. She only knew she preferred her brother's toys and enjoyed sports. These traits disturbed her mother so much that she assumed my friend had a mental illness. This is where her "distress" came from.
Until the notion of "gender" stops being defined as the labeling of specific mannerisms, interests, and predilections associated with either the male or the female body, there will be "distress."
We're an inherently conformist species. We want friends, we want to belong. Otherwise, life is terribly lonely. What we all want as people is to be accepted for who and what we are without having to pretend we're something else. Distress is simply a by-product of the vapid stupidity of human beings who can't separate character and personality from the penis and vagina.
I'm so sick of pretending there's a "right" way to be a boy or a girl. The implication is that there is one single individual who's the ideal man, for example, and every other man is just measuring himself as to how far away from the ideal he is. And how far away is too far and tips him into the "born in the wrong body" state? 5'8" instead of 6"? Likes to wear pink or have long hair? Enjoys fashion? And then expecting the whole world to accommodate this version of "reality" or receive social and legal sanctions is the icing on the cake. It's all ridiculous. We're all born male or female. The gender identity crowd created a problem that didn't exist except in a very few rare cases, made it mainstream, and backed into "gender identity" as a solution. Oh, and made it into a billion dollar industry. Don't forget the motivation.
I do see your point, too. Your point is that they are in distress because they don't feel like they fit. That's a real thing that needs to be addressed.
There is genuine distress over wanting to be the other sex, which I feel nothing but sympathy for, but don't see as anything different from distress because a person wants to be disabled (i.e. wants an arm or leg or eyes gone) -- a genuine problem in the mind that needs special help.
Most "trans" is not that, until they're manipulated into believing it's that and following through on treatment that's the exact opposite of a real solution. The first of them manipulated by genuinely evil people, and many of the rest merely deceived and spreading the deception out of misguided compassion.
What to do about those feeling distress over not conforming to stereotypes or societal expected roles? First is separating "typical of" from "required of" in society. Recognize the pattern, but recognize that not everything needs to fit it -- and altering yourself to fit it is rarely wise. Second is rebuilding a REAL sense of community, connection in person with actual face to face people that see the whole of your presentation and not just the curated bits that we put online.
Thank you for your response. I'm glad we agree on the fundamentals: the distress of not fitting into expected stereotypes or social roles is real, and it should be addressed with psychological help, not medicalization.
But I want to focus on one point that I find problematic. You say: "Most people who identify as 'trans' are not trans." From this one could deduce that a minority actually are.
In other words, there would be "true trans" versus "confused or deceived" people.
Is that what you're arguing?
If so, my question is: what does it mean to be "truly trans"?
If "being trans" simply means not fitting into typical patterns of behavior or expression for your sex, then no one is "truly trans." That's just human diversity.
If "being trans" means having undergone social transition (name change, pronouns), hormonal, or surgical transition, then yes, there are people who have done that. But that doesn't prove they were "born with a trans mind." It only proves they underwent those procedures.
The problem is that before so-called "gender medicine" took over, studies showed that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria outgrew it after puberty.
If the pressure to transition that exists today had existed back then, many of them probably would have followed the medical path. That casts doubt on the existence of a core group of "true trans" people who need transition.
I'm not saying your distinction is impossible. I'm saying it's not supported by the evidence, and in practice, it has served to justify the medicalization of children and adolescents who, in other eras, would have grown up to be perfectly healthy homosexual adults.
So we come back to the original point: the solution is self-acceptance and psychological support, not figuring out who is "truly trans" and who isn't.
I'm so sick of pretending there's a "right" way to be a boy or a girl. The implication is that there is one way to be the ideal man, for example, and every other man is just measuring himself as to how far away from the ideal he is. And how far away is too far and tips him into the "born in the wrong body" state? 5'8" instead of 6"? Likes to wear pink or have long hair? Doesn't like football? And then expecting the whole world to accommodate this version of "reality" or receive social and legal sanctions is the icing on the cake. It's all ridiculous. We're all born male or female. The gender identity crowd created a problem that didn't exist except in a very few rare cases, made it mainstream, and backed into "gender identity" as a solution. Oh, and made it into a billion dollar industry. Don't forget that important part.
I agree that it's a good starting point, but I also recognize that it's a really hard question which doesn't have complete answers. Self acceptance and love for the person *as they are* is given, but I think it may also require medical intervention -- not to alter the person's body, but to modulate anxiety, compulsions, and possibly delusions. But all on a "balance of harms" basis.
California lost its soul years ago and that is the proof
I can totally believe it. My son while living in California decided to transition. Had he not been in Cali in the middle of a pandemic, I might still have a son.
I totally agree with the article. What is happening in California and New York State is a clear first amendment violation (the states established gender religion). ACLU should be suing both stats for this. What is ACLU doing instead? It is pushing the religion itself. The reversal of its values is not restricted to this issue---famously ACLU no longer stands for free speech (cf ACLU lawyer Chase/Kate Strangio's famous quote "... stopping the circulation of this book and these is 100% a hill I will die on.").
I totally agree, Dave. It's emblematic of the 180 degree turn that the Left has made on several fronts. Democrats have been so conditioned as to believe that freedom of speech (and consequently freedom of thought) is inherently dangerous. My forever-Democratic wife will never forgive me for switching parties. What I've learned from our arguments is that I can actually still agree with her on several issues, but I'm failing to prioritize those issues correctly. That is...vote Democratic! That demand for ideological conformity could just be human nature, but I actually believe it is more characteristic of the Left. Yet if either of her two grandchildren were brainwashed and started down the transgender path, you better believe that would be her "step on the rake" moment. Then and only then would it register with her as a legitimate concern or priority.
Yes, and it shamelessly piggybacks on civil rights for legitimacy, constantly harping about how "transphobia" is like racism. That analogy taps into deep guilt and a religious impulse to atone for sin. The self righteous shunning of non believers in my deep blue college town is worthy of a cult. The New Puritans, as Andrew Doyle called them. So true.
Sadly we might lose another election over this.
I’m really glad I live in a state that doesn’t enforce this religion!
Definitely a fringe religion. If I ever get to talk to anyone influential I will frame it as such.
This is quite accurate. This bizarre belief system needs to be treated as just that. People can have bizarre beliefs, but they should not be forcing those beliefs on other people, teaching them to children as facts, and punishing the non-believers. Children should be protected from the more gruesome rituals of this belief system, from puberty blockers to cross-sex synthetic hormones to chopping off body parts or mangling others.
I keep waiting for society to realize this, and I'm hopeful that some day it will, at which point people will look back in horror on what our state governments (executive, legislative and judicial branches) and former federal government, and all the pillars of society, from large corporations, to famous people, to educators and medical providers, have done.
Gender ideology is a religion owing to the claim of a trans soul, the in/out group mentality and the fanaticism. It has gone beyond the fetish of a few.
The article states: "Those who defend gender ideology believe it is possible to have a 'gender identity' different from one's 'sex assigned at birth,' although there is no credible evidence of a biological or scientific basis for this concept. Declaring that you are a boy in a girl's body is an idea, a thought, ultimately a belief. And yet, the existence of boys in girls' bodies (and vice versa) is the official state policy of many US states."
Let's go step by step.
There are people who claim to have a "gender identity" different from their sex assigned at birth. That is a fact. What this means is that these people do not have a typical gender expression — that is, the expression we all associate with a given sex. For example, boys on average are more active than girls. If a boy behaves like the majority of girls, then he does not have typical behavior for his sex. In that case, he would have a "gender identity" different from his sex.
In general, males with a gender identity different from their sex will, in adulthood, be effeminate homosexuals. And girls with a gender identity different from their sex will be masculine lesbians. Or at least that was the case before so-called "gender medicine" took over.
The problem, then, is not that there are people with a cross-gender identity, but rather what response we give them when they experience "gender dysphoria."
There are basically two options: either we put them into gender medicine (with hormonal and surgical treatments), or we promote self-acceptance and help them deal with the hostile reactions they may encounter from others. I firmly believe the latter is the correct choice.
I don't consider "likes to do things and behave in ways not typical of their sex" to be "has a different gender identity" at all. I reject the use of the neologism at all. It rejects all the progress of last generation's feminism.
I do agree that some behaviors are *typical* of one gender or another, but they're not *means of identification* any more than "can jump high and loves to play basketball" is a way to identify that a person is Black. It's just absurd.
People who say they have a gender identity different from their sex do indeed behave and express themselves in ways that are atypical for their sex.
These different forms can range from behaviors to clothing, hairstyles, and other things.
That is what they call "gender identity" — whether we agree with that nomenclature or not.
Whether we accept it or not, the important thing is that the solution to gender dysphoria — that is, the distress suffered from being different — should be self-acceptance, not medicalization.
Focusing on the claim that gender identity doesn't exist is a distraction from the real problem.
Calling it "gender identity" at all is part of the problem. Is your height part of your gender identity? These are things that have trends that statistically align with gender, but *attaching* them to gender *causes* the problems we see here.
We already solved this problem over 30 years ago. The only reason it's coming back is because somebody *wants* it to be a problem.
I think I understand your point now. You're saying that labeling behaviors, clothing, and hairstyles as "gender identity" is the original mistake. And that before this new ideology, we already had a feminist framework where a boy could be feminine without being called a girl.
I agree with you on that historical point. But here's my question:
Even if we don't use the term "gender identity" — or even if we reject it entirely — there are still children and teenagers who experience distress because they are different. They feel that their atypical behaviors or preferences mean something deeper about who they are. That distress is real, regardless of whether the category is invented or what name we give it.
So what do we do with that distress? My position is: help them accept themselves as they are (boys who enjoy feminine things, girls who enjoy masculine things, or future homosexual adults). Your position seems to be: the distress itself is caused by the false category, so if we stop using the category, the distress will disappear.
Is that correct? If so, I'm not sure the distress disappears just by renaming things or eliminating the category. Children still get bullied for being different. They still feel ashamed. They still look for explanations. And right now, the only explanation offered by schools, media, and doctors is "you must be trans."
So even if we agree the term is wrong, we still face the same practical question: how do we help these children without medicalizing them?
We can help children without medicalizing them by dumping the concept of gender into the garbage once and for all.
"Distress" comes from ridicule, bullying and loss of affiliation of ones peers. If there were no judgments, there would be no distress. If the obsession with "gender" didn't exist, or if it were irrelevant to the character, intelligence, and interests of a person, nobody would be in distress.
Back in the 1950's, a lesbian friend of mine was taken to a psychiatrist by her mother because she didn't want to wear dresses and have her hair curled. She hadn't reached puberty yet and didn't know she was a lesbian yet. She only knew she preferred her brother's toys and enjoyed sports. These traits disturbed her mother so much that she assumed my friend had a mental illness. This is where her "distress" came from.
Until the notion of "gender" stops being defined as the labeling of specific mannerisms, interests, and predilections associated with either the male or the female body, there will be "distress."
We're an inherently conformist species. We want friends, we want to belong. Otherwise, life is terribly lonely. What we all want as people is to be accepted for who and what we are without having to pretend we're something else. Distress is simply a by-product of the vapid stupidity of human beings who can't separate character and personality from the penis and vagina.
I'm so sick of pretending there's a "right" way to be a boy or a girl. The implication is that there is one single individual who's the ideal man, for example, and every other man is just measuring himself as to how far away from the ideal he is. And how far away is too far and tips him into the "born in the wrong body" state? 5'8" instead of 6"? Likes to wear pink or have long hair? Enjoys fashion? And then expecting the whole world to accommodate this version of "reality" or receive social and legal sanctions is the icing on the cake. It's all ridiculous. We're all born male or female. The gender identity crowd created a problem that didn't exist except in a very few rare cases, made it mainstream, and backed into "gender identity" as a solution. Oh, and made it into a billion dollar industry. Don't forget the motivation.
I do see your point, too. Your point is that they are in distress because they don't feel like they fit. That's a real thing that needs to be addressed.
There is genuine distress over wanting to be the other sex, which I feel nothing but sympathy for, but don't see as anything different from distress because a person wants to be disabled (i.e. wants an arm or leg or eyes gone) -- a genuine problem in the mind that needs special help.
Most "trans" is not that, until they're manipulated into believing it's that and following through on treatment that's the exact opposite of a real solution. The first of them manipulated by genuinely evil people, and many of the rest merely deceived and spreading the deception out of misguided compassion.
What to do about those feeling distress over not conforming to stereotypes or societal expected roles? First is separating "typical of" from "required of" in society. Recognize the pattern, but recognize that not everything needs to fit it -- and altering yourself to fit it is rarely wise. Second is rebuilding a REAL sense of community, connection in person with actual face to face people that see the whole of your presentation and not just the curated bits that we put online.
Thank you for your response. I'm glad we agree on the fundamentals: the distress of not fitting into expected stereotypes or social roles is real, and it should be addressed with psychological help, not medicalization.
But I want to focus on one point that I find problematic. You say: "Most people who identify as 'trans' are not trans." From this one could deduce that a minority actually are.
In other words, there would be "true trans" versus "confused or deceived" people.
Is that what you're arguing?
If so, my question is: what does it mean to be "truly trans"?
If "being trans" simply means not fitting into typical patterns of behavior or expression for your sex, then no one is "truly trans." That's just human diversity.
If "being trans" means having undergone social transition (name change, pronouns), hormonal, or surgical transition, then yes, there are people who have done that. But that doesn't prove they were "born with a trans mind." It only proves they underwent those procedures.
The problem is that before so-called "gender medicine" took over, studies showed that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria outgrew it after puberty.
https://cabrerae.substack.com/p/trans-identity-fixed-or-transient
If the pressure to transition that exists today had existed back then, many of them probably would have followed the medical path. That casts doubt on the existence of a core group of "true trans" people who need transition.
I'm not saying your distinction is impossible. I'm saying it's not supported by the evidence, and in practice, it has served to justify the medicalization of children and adolescents who, in other eras, would have grown up to be perfectly healthy homosexual adults.
So we come back to the original point: the solution is self-acceptance and psychological support, not figuring out who is "truly trans" and who isn't.